{"id":277686,"date":"2022-11-18T10:00:05","date_gmt":"2022-11-18T04:30:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=277686"},"modified":"2022-11-18T10:00:05","modified_gmt":"2022-11-18T04:30:05","slug":"can-officers-under-maharashtra-money-lending-act-2014-pass-orders-contrary-to-decree-of-a-civil-court-bombay-high-court-decides","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/18\/can-officers-under-maharashtra-money-lending-act-2014-pass-orders-contrary-to-decree-of-a-civil-court-bombay-high-court-decides\/","title":{"rendered":"Can officers under Maharashtra Money Lending Act, 2014 pass orders contrary to decree of a Civil Court? Bombay High Court decides"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> In a unique case where the officers exercising powers under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014<\/a> have effectively sought to ignore the order passed by the Civil Court deciding the very same issue, Sandeep V. Marne, J. held that orders passed by the authorities exercising powers under the Act, 2014 must yield to the judgment and order delivered by the Civil Court.<\/p>\n

Question of Law<\/span><\/p>\n

The moot question before the Court was whether an authority exercising powers under the provisions of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014<\/a> (the Act, 2014) can pass an order contrary to a decree passed by a Civil Court.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/span><\/p>\n

The genesis of the case is that two sale deeds came to be executed by respondent 5 in favour of the petitioner transferring the right, title, and interest in respect of land for a consideration of Rs. 3,00,000 each (total consideration of Rs. 6,00,000). While the petitioner considered the transaction as a sale deed, respondent 5 assumed the same to be a mortgage by conditional sale. Hence, despite respondent 5 being willing to return the amount of Rs. 6,00,000, the petitioner failed to reconvey the land. Therefore, respondent 5 made a representation before the Minister for Agriculture and Marketing alleging that the petitioner had been acting as an unauthorized money lender and been transferring the land of poor farmers in his own name.<\/p>\n

Pertinently, on account of respondent 5 approaching the Minister, the District Registrar (Money Lending) initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 2014, despite the fact that respondent 5 had already instituted Special Civil Suit No. 20\/2012 in the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division seeking reconveyance of the lands and a declaration that the transaction was in the nature of mortgage by conditional sale.<\/p>\n

Impugned Order<\/span><\/p>\n

The District Registrar and District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies passed the impugned order under the provisions of Section 18(2) of the Act of 2014 declaring that the sale deeds executed by respondent 5 in favour of the petitioner were void and it consequently restored the ownership of the land in the name of respondent 5. Though the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, the same had been dismissed.<\/p>\n

In the meantime, the Special Civil Suit instituted by respondent 5 came to be dismissed by the vide judgment holding that the transaction that took place between petitioner and respondent 5 was that of sale and not of a mortgage by conditional sale. The prayer of respondent 5 for reconveyance of the land was accordingly rejected.<\/p>\n

Observations and Findings<\/span><\/p>\n